brooksball, Thanks for posting the video. Like I said, the only post player I have seen with moves like Olajuwon's has been Kevin McHale. And I had seen plenty of him since I grew up in Boston area. The video should also refute usual claims such as... 1) Hakeem could not shoot jumpers early on. He buried a whole bunch against the Celtics in the finals. Most of them were contested. 2) Hakeem didnt have what it took to win early on. His team dismantled the defending NBA champions (Lakers) in 5 games while Hakeem was in his second year. His performance made an impression in the Finals against one of the best all time teams. When a great Celtics Homer like Tommy Heinson is giving your game and your moves props in a championship game, you know you have a winner in your hands. Had Sampson's knees not given in and the other players not gotten into drug problems, Hakeem and his team would have gone on to collect numerous rings. And he was dominating while never having picked up basketball prior to age of 16.
True, but only part of the story. Dream was asked to be the best player on the court every game. The entire philosophy of the Rockets was predicated on Dream drawing a double team and being able to destroy it or pass out of it on offense and beating his man down court and controlling the lane on defense. The offensive sets and defensive schemes all centered on Olajuwon and were designed by Rudy specifically for his skills. If Dream had been content to be the third guy on a team, he could have put up Rodmanesque rebounding numbers with no problem, but he was asked to do so much more. Duncan's a focal point, but it is not constant... Tony and Manu sometimes tilt the floor to where they are playing. The notion that any Rocket besides Dream would be Finals MVP is unfathomable.
man we've been spoiled by Akeem and Hakeem all those years.. there will never be another like him.. those vids bring back a lot of great memories
So we have Dream playing with PFs such as Sampson, Otis Thorpe, Barkley, all double digit rebounders, collecting their share of rebounds for 6-8 years. We have Duncan with Robinson (2 years) and then the likes of Nestrovic?? I would imagine Hakeem's rebound numbers would have been even better if not having to delegate some of the rebounding duties to the PFs he has played with.
I think the 95 Team would beat Robinson and Duncan 's championship team. If Tim Duncan doesn't double team Dream, Dream will drop 40+ on Robinson all night. If he does double, then Robert Horry would go crazy like he did vs the Spurs. Its a no win situation for the Spurs. And when the Lakers beat the Spurs, they stuck Horry on him.
I agree with this and I have addressed it in my earlier posts. If Manu and Parker were not able to bail out Duncan on several occasions, he would not have 4 rings. They have rescued him when likes of Wallace boys etc have shut him down in playoffs. As I said, there is no way that Duncan could have led the 94 Rockets to championship over the Knicks.
Somehow, this argument doesn't resonate with me. Olajuwon was hyper competitive, very prideful, and he demanded the ball. When he didn't get his touches, he let his teammates know that they need to look to him more. Rudy T designed the offense to be centered almost exclusively around Olajuwon in the championship years. The Spurs and Duncan operate differently. It's a more team-oriented offense, and the ball doesn't have to go to any one player. That Hakeem demanded and excelled in a more dominant offensive role in his peak Rocket years is a testament to his greatness, but does that in itself make him the "better" than Duncan? Would it be fair to say, for instance, that while Duncan did not dominate to the extent Hakeem did at times, in general the things he did made his teammates better? These are just questions to consider.
Ring #4 was the Robert Horry ring. Duncan was contained that game and Horry provided all the highlights, the dunk over Hamilton and <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BZdik09RGJI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BZdik09RGJI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I remember that game well. I was watching it in my dorm with my gf. Before that play, I told her, "Pistons would be stupid to leave Horry wide open." Duncan should be thankful that they were.
In what ways did he help make Parker and Manu better that Hakeem could not have? Hakeem too was constantly praised for making his teammates better and leading them to championships. If Duncan gets credit for making Manu and Parker better, and he should, Manu and Parker should also get credit for making him better. There have been several games where Duncan has been contained and Manu (I say it again, a vastly underrated player) and Parker's penetration have opened things up for Duncan and his teammates. Duncan is just not an explosive scorer and for the Rockets to win the two championships that they did, he would have had to be. I cannot see Duncan dominate Robinson, Ewing, Malone, and Shaq in playoffs. Keep in mind, that an over the hill Karl Malone contained a prime Duncan in playoffs. When the Jazz switched a prime Malone on Hakeem in 94 playoffs, Hakeem still dropped 40 on them. Popvich would have gladly taken Duncan dominating Malone on one on one. They called a number of plays for Duncan but Duncan was neutralized. If not, they would have been in the finals. Same against the Wallaces, Gasol (lol), and Shaq.
I vote Dream!!!! er what was the question??? btw thanks for the video... been a long time since I seen that Celtics team play(with a young Dream too boot)
On offense, let's suppose that Duncan is better in the high post, he's better in a pick and roll, and he's a better passer. Let's say he's also more willing to take a secondary role on offense if there is a matchup advantage elsewhere. Supposing all that is true, Olajuwon could still be a more dominant individual player, while Duncan allows other players to thrive more. And, ultimately, what matters isn't who dominated more but rather who made their team more successful. So, you have to look not only at what each player did individually, but also how he helped his teammates. This is hypothetical and just something to consider. I'm not saying Olajuwon didn't make his teammates better. The arguments in the thread so far have been centered more on how each player dominated individually, but let's recognize that there's that other element to the game which is important but often undervalued -- making your teammates better. Unfortunately, that's much more difficult to quantify and describe with stats.
You're forgetting Olajuwon played in an era where zone defenses were illegal (unless you're Seattle), so teams could build around isolation players and that's exactly what Houston did. Olajuwon made his teammates much better on defense (Kenny Smith needed to funnel his man to Olajuwon since he couldn't stay in front of him) and they relied on him for open looks on offense. Duncan just didn't have the tools to be the dominant isolation player that Olajuwon was, so he had to rely on being more of a system player especially in the day and age he played. Irrelevant argument.
I never listen to any of the article writers on Fox Sports. You guys have to remember these are the same guys who called Shane Battier and Yao Ming overrated. I could understand Yao, but Battier? That is just unacceptable.
Hakeem never really played with a PG of Parker's caliber, however, we can take a look at his years with Clyde. I think he welcomed the idea of playing with someone else he can share the offensive load with, which is why he approved the trade, even though Otis Thorpe was instrumental to what they had been doing. He shared the ball just fine with Drexler on board, and Drexler and his teammates thrived. Barkley was brought in for the same purpose. I do not think he would have had any problem with Parker and Manu creating shots for everyone. I think Hakeem was a better pick and roll player. He and Drexler ran pick and pop/roll on occasions. There were several with Kenny Smith and mario Elie. What makes Hakeem a better pick and pop player is that he is a better jump shooter than Duncan, which means his defender would have to come out more to cover him. He also had his spin moves off of pick and roll. Hakeem was also more explosive which means defenders would be more prone to pay attention to him around the basket for pick and roll situation thus giving the driver more rom to operate, ala Amare However, I do think that Duncan is the better passer off of top of the key. Hakeem had perfected the art of passing out of double teams and finding open teammates but it was more with his back to the basket. I have seen Duncan pass plenty of times from top of the key. I cant recall Hakeem making too many of these. As for who helped his teammates more and helped them get better more, it's hard to quantify but I would pick Hakeem simply because he did more with less. Again, I do not think he would have any problem with Manu and Parker driving and passing the ball to him for open layups, just as he had no problems with Drexler doing the same.
But if what you say is true, its equally irrelevant to point to Olajuwon's dominance as proof he was better.
I'll take Kenny/Sam and Vernon too. Vernon could clamp manu. Kenny is a reliable shooter and passer, Sam would post up Tony Parker all day and drop mid range jumpers like rain in a rain forest. Clutch City is FOREVER!!!
Olajuwon was a better isolation player than Duncan, and he made his teammates better on offense (not in comparison to Duncan, that comparison is irrelevant) thanks to the system he played in. And while Hakeem aggressively demanded the ball in the 80's he turned over a new, peaceful leaf with his conversion to Islam. Sometimes you throw out irrelevant arguments just for the sake of intense scrutinization on a subjective matter, and it pains me to see the brainpower go to waste.
The making your teammates better argument is the biggest load of crock I have ever heard. It's funny how players suddenly "learn to make their teammates better" when their teammates don't suck. They said the same about MJ and Kobe...until they got teammates that didn't suck. That argument is really overblown in Hakeem's case. Did he know how to make teammates better in 86...and then suddenly forgot until 92....or did his teammates just happen to go from good to suck to good again? I'm sorry...you can't tell me a dude is as good as Hakeem iF he can be neutralized by Robert Horry or Gasol. Gasol???? GASOL???????
First, I don't agree with your suppositions. Dream played high post quite a bit. He was a threat to shoot or drive against anyone. Duncan is a threat to shoot most of the time unless he's being closed out by someone with Muresan-like quickness. Second, why would Dream take a secondary role in the offense and defer to a match-up advantage when Hakeem with the ball was the greatest match-up advantage on the floor? (By positing that question, you're admitting Duncan can be stymied by a good defender.) Asking Dream to take a secondary role to exploit a match-up advantage elsewhere would be like wanting Pastorini to pass to Carpenter in the flat when facing third and one instead of handing it off to Earl. If you want to win, you hand it to Earl. If you want to win, you run the offense through Dream and let him decide whether to humiliate his man, beat the double team with quickness, strength, and skill, or pass to an open teammate.
